An important Supreme Court decision on the right to self-defense involved the fear of anti-LGBT violence.

The New York Daily News has used the Orlando attack (as have many, many others) to continue its call for stricter gun controls and to blame the National Rifle Association (NRA), in spite of America's lengthy history of being completely unable to ban access to any product or good its citizens want to get their hands on.

But despite their tunnel vision, let's give credit to them for giving space for a strong opposing opinion. Today they've also got a piece by noted gay, libertarian, gun rights advocate Tom G. Palmer, calling for LGBT citizens to arm themselves. He writes:

Let's get one thing very clear. Gun control advocates disarmed the victims at that night club. Florida law states unequivocally that even a concealed carry permit "does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose."

That made those people sitting ducks. Legally designated gun-free zones are invitations to killers. They get to rack up kills among defenseless victims without any effective opposition. There is a reason that they seek out such places: Everyone has been disarmed and rendered defenseless by the gun-control movement.

Advocates of gun control think it's a good idea to disarm victims and to advertise where you can find completely defenseless people because there's one primitive magical superstition they share with the murderer Omar Mateen: chanting things makes them true. If you chant the right words, in this case "Guns are forbidden," no one will have guns. And if no one has guns, there will be no murders.

Palmer isn't just a supporter of gun rights, he helped fight to secure them. Palmer was one of the plaintiffs of the important District of Columbia v. HellerSupreme Court decision. That was one of the Supreme Court decisions that helped establish that the Second Amendment right to self-defense is, indeed, an individual right.

Palmer fought for gun rights on the basis of being able to protect himself from the likes of Orlando killer Omar Mateen. He had previously used a gun in California to scare off a pack of men who threatened him with apparent antigay animus. But D.C. laws prohibited from similarly defending himself (and others) there.

The call for more gun control here is as predictable as it is rather baffling. For one, there is no prohibition in the United States that actually works. And while there's increasing evidence that Mateen was likely a dirtbag even before ISIS came around to use an excuse to wreak the mayhem he probably always fantasized about, it's just not clear that he ever would have been affected by tighter gun regulations—that is, unless we started using mere suspicion as an excuse to curtail liberties, which some have been promoting. It's as much of a constitutional violation as proposed "hate speech" restrictions and will likely have the same unintended consequences. We would have no control over who the government prosecutes or who the government denies gun rights. Keep in mind Mateen worked as a security guard with government contracts. Many gun restrictions have exemptions for those who work in law enforcement.

What we do know is that clearly relying on the government domestic surveillance system to prevent attacks failed here just as it failed in San Bernardino. So many responses to this sort of violence seem to a call for a sort of collective action that's already been shown to be unsuccessful. Think all Muslims should be under surveillance? Well, Mateen was investigated a couple of times by the FBI, who apparently did not conclude he was a threat. Think there should be collectively tighter gun controls? Have we forgotten Bataclan already? Go ahead and forget France, then—many of the same people calling for tighter gun laws already understand that prohibition against drugs are a massive failure that have done little but throw more people in prison. Prohibitions don't work.

How could some sort of collective government response be successful to such a decentralized domestic threat? How is it reasonable to expect that the same government that failed to predict Mateen's behavior (and to be clear, I'm not saying that it was even possible to know that this was coming) to be able to immediately mobilize and protect us at the drop of a pin?

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Orlando Police certainly tried in this case. The latest details have police rushing into the club early on to confront Mateen, leading to a firefight, followed by a hostage scenario. Now we can dread the possibility that some people might have been killed by police gunfire by accident. But that's the argument that gun control advocates use against individual ownership—self-defense in public encounters might not work, and innocents could get hurt or killed. If the same thing happens when police respond to mass shootings, and it's not reasonable to expect safer outcomes when the government gets involved, then all people are doing is rendering themselves utterly, bafflingly helpless. What happened wasn't a failure of gun control. It's exactly what an outcome of gun control looks like that advocates just refuse to accept as an unintended consequence.

People can decide that they don't want to arm themselves. And the bar owner should be able to decide whether to allow armed patrons or not. But people should not be able to make that decision for others. That was exactly Palmer's crusade. He should not have to hope that somebody with a badge shows up with guns blazing to protect him in time. None of us should. It's not a realistic expectation of government.

Palmer is hardly alone in wanting to defend himself against anti-gay attacks. Check out the Pink Pistols.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

I would definitely advise arming yourself. Understand though Scott, a guy who is willing to do what this guy did, would also drive a car full of explosives into that bar if that was what was required. Yes, that is harder than just shooting people. Building bombs is not easy but it isn’t that hard either. So, arming yourself only goes so far. Let a few of these types of attacks fail and they will just change their methods to something that will work.

In the case reported in the post, a group of men surrounded a gay guy and began nerving themselves up to attack him. Instead of submitting meekly, Mr. Gay whipped out his piece – and this is the one context in which I can say good for him for doing that.

“Building bombs is not easy” – honestly building a bomb is easier than buying a gun, ammo, and getting proficient enough to change out mags quick enough to not get tackled or shot in between. And, you can buy the ingredients at a grocery store or pharmacy (unless you want, say, nails as shrapnel – home depot).

The biggest problems amateur bombers face are a detonator (i.e. a blasting cap) and a way to delay detonation (fuse, timer, etc.), but they get around both pretty easily. The Boston Marathon Bombers just used black powder (does not require a blasting cap) dumped in a pressure cooker with all the shrapnel, and a remote control (although a kitchen timer would’ve had the same effect). You can’t buy black powder at most pharmacies, but you can buy the same stuff Eric Rudolph used for his truck bomb there in multiple products sold for other purposes.

Then you can logon to Youtube for easy instructional videos. A few missing fingers and 1 less eye later and your a jihadist.

Also, if a guy like that can jump through all the hoops he did to get his Florida security papers he is probably capable of jumping through the hoops necessary to to get a Federal Explosives Permit. All he really needs to do is put himself into a line of work that provides suitable justification.

Make 14500 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website.._________ http://www.earnmore9.com

Well, not the mainstream, which I suspect is still as gun-controlly as ever – but the Pink Pistols – who defend *everyone’s* Second Amendment rights in the reasonable belief that doing so will help vulnerable populations – like gays.

For the mainstream of the gay-rights movement, you don’t have the right to be armed against gunmen who go to a gay wedding with a massacre in mind, but you *do* have the right to conscript an unwilling baker to cater that wedding.

When they start pushing for special privileges for gays re: guns (like, say, shall-issue without showing cause, but only if you’re gay), they will be gay-rights activists. Until then, they are gun-rights activists.

A Muslim guns down fifty gays the Progressive response is to say the population needs to be disarmed and we need to let more Muslims into the country . But remember, its the evil conservatives who hate gays.

Did you see or hear of ESPN’s (I know, I know, I know…but does it help to totally ignore them or just accept and put up their pollution of sport?) Jemelle Hill’s tweet in which she castigated the West for daring to lecture Islam about LBGTQ?

Of course, we are very white but since Ireland’s been conquered by pretty much everyone that’s been able to find the island, while being a second class citizen virtually everywhere they’ve gone, I’d say white privilege skipped us somehow.

But hey, national kick a ginger day right! It’s like a nationally recognized hate crime day! Free pass, because white!

Not the weddings! The one I was at turned into a total bawling contest. One of the brides was a former Army officer and now senior DoD manager and was getting pissed at everyone acting like fucking weeping marys.

I became an anarchist roundaboutly. I never had much use for collectivist anything; I remember a friend trying to talk me into joining the cub scouts because you get to go camping, learn all sorts of stuff, and me trying to understand why he couldn’t just learn them on his own. I grew up with the incompetent Vietnam War and NASA’s turn to the dark side after Apollo, and the last straw was learning that radio frequency allocation and air traffic control had their beginnings in spontaneous user organization, and were co-opted by politicians at the behest of cronies. I gradually realized that government by definition is incompetent, figured out self-ownership on my own but without any labels, and then discovered that others had already figured it all out, and found sites like Reason.

To me, self-ownership is so natural and obvious that I simply cannot understand how people can swallow crap like minimum wage and occupational licensing laws, especially when their racist origins are so well-documented. Alcohol and birth control prohibition didn’t work, drugs prohibition hasn’t worked, and gun control hasn’t worked, yet so many people want to keep on trying.

Then there’s all the lip-service to science: creationists who deny evolution while happy with GMO food, global warmists who deny GMO, how can they stay even remotely sane while holding such Caterpillarish conflicting nptions simultaneously?

And along come people like Scott and other writers here, who also seem to be sane, and I wonder … there are two of us? Three? How can there be so few sane people in this world? Logic would seem to imply that when only a very few people seem sane, it is more likely they who are insane, and all the political junkies who are normal.

I sometimes think of visiting the LA hq, or taking one of the Reason cruises, just to verify that there actually are other people with consistent views of freedom. It’s really hard to get a handle on.

I think there is a high correlation between perceptions of ‘sanity’ and confirmation bias. “These people are talking sense (confirming my beliefs) why does everyone else talk crazy (support a different belief set)?”

Not a creationist, but not sure how a recognition of the science of genetics, and the technology of genetic manipulation somehow absolutely precludes the existence of a creator. Couldn’t that hypothetical creator have also created DNA and made it the mechanism for genetic expression?

My wife’s brothers both believe (or claim to believe) the 6000-years-old-earth horseshit. My mother-in-law has forbidden any discussion of the topic at family gatherings, because my wife, who has degrees in Biology and Animal Science, has a short fuse and a tendency to tell them how full of shit they are.

On reflection, my mother-in-law probably handled the issue appropriately. Best for family harmony and all that.

(The Ghiselin quote is horrendous, accusing Stove of stating “..organisms invariably reproduce as much as possible” when it is Stove who argues in multiple chapters that it is Darwin who made that assertion and that it is (as Ghiselin agrees) laughably and observedly wrong. In it’s entirety the quote makes one doubt that Ghiselin actually read the book.)

*You* can say whatever you want. You don’t need “our” permission. And if you get that permission, it will be *you* who gets that permission, and it does not extend to “we* being required to say anything.

That depends, are you trying to be persuasive, or are you trying to “virtue signal”?

Because, generally speaking, your “everyone should be armed, for any reason or for no reason” line quickly crumbles under cross-examination. Okay, you say, we didn’t mean children (where do you draw the line? 16? 18? 12? Lower?), we didn’t mean the mentally unstable (who gets to decide who is/isn’t mentally unstable? Did visiting a therapist just become a one-way ticket to losing your gun rights? How do we let Joe with anger issues keep his gun while making sure that senile and delusional grandpa doesn’t?), we didn’t mean those physically incapable (okay, so Steven Hawking doesn’t get a gun. What about a guy with a tremble who can’t stay on target?), we didn’t mean felons (but which felons? Violent crimes you could probably get support for, but we’re increasingly getting non-violent felons) and so-on.

You can stick to your “everyone” argument if you want, but it’ll mostly be virtue-signaling. It won’t actually be persuasive. Sure, you’ll get cheers from people that already agree with you, but that’s not persuading them any.

But gays should have no worries about Muslim immigration. None at all.

I responded by pointing out that Qaradawi has advocated executing homosexuals, and that he gave advice on his website about how a Muslim man can beat his wife in an Islamically correct way.

“That’s violent,” I told Mr. Elmougy. He slammed his hand on the table and said he agreed with the Shaykh, and that he wouldn’t apologize for it. He went on to tell a story about an adulteress who came to the Prophet asking for release from her sins. The Prophet ordered her stoned to death, said Mr. Elmougy, and declared that he could see her rejoicing in paradise. Mr. Elmougy finished his account by saying that things we Westerners consider to be unacceptable violence are considered by Muslims like him to be pro-family “deterrence.”

I don’t mind all these idiots claiming to know what God proclaims. I object to them trying to enforce God’s will here. The hypocrisy of proclaiming God to be all-knowing and all-powerful, then taking it upon themselves to know and execute on his behalf…. of course, they all say God made them do it. Can’t beat that logic.

Like the joke about the flood victim. Police warn to evacuate, he declines. Police come door-to-door, he declines. Police rescue boat comes by, he declines. Helicopter wants to lift him off the roof, he declines. He drowns. He asks God why He didn’t rescue him? God says “I sent police, a boat, and a helicopter — what more did you expect?”

They won’t keep to themselves. And it doesn’t matter if it is only a few of them who are willing to murder. Okay, lets say one in a hundred thousand Muslims ever actually does something horrible. That quickly adds up to a lot of attacks like Saturday. One attack like Saturday is too many. But a five or a dozen?

The Prophet ordered her stoned to death, said Mr. Elmougy, and declared that he could see her rejoicing in paradise. Mr. Elmougy finished his account by saying that things we Westerners consider to be unacceptable violence are considered by Muslims like him to be pro-family “deterrence.”

Also, is most people just forgetting that Islam is not just a religion? They have a legal system named Shariah. A pretty good percentage of Muslims support this system and want it imposed wherever they live. It’s pretty incompatible with the American legal system. But I’m wagering that we’ll soon start allowing Shariah zones in the USA. On our current path, it’s inevitable.

Hey, I have decades of being told that it’s unacceptable to blame all Christians (as a group) for the actions of a few Christians (as individuals). If we get to blame all Muslims for this guy, then blaming all Christians for what the few fuck-ups do is game.

Let’s just face it. We live in a world right now where it is not safe to be a defenseless target. When the government takes away people’s right to defend themselves and those people are murdered, the government is responsible for that murder. There’s no 2 ways about it. Every American should have a right to self defense, period.

Do we know that someone pointed out the incongruity to the shooter during the situation? I am sure once he knew, he would have been red-faced from embarrassment, apologized profusely, and taken his hate-fueled shooting spree to a more appropriate venue.

The apprehension process would be a lot simpler for police if the person they were apprehending was not armed.

This is precisely the argument a cop friend of mine (who was otherwise a decent and thoughtful person, but had blinders about this specific issue) used to use when I asked him “Why shouldn’t Canadians be armed?” To him, it was all about making police officers’ jobs easier and safer. It just never occurred to him that, in a supposedly liberal democracy, the job of a police officer was supposed to be difficult. Otherwise, the liberal democracy’s doing something wrong.

I have to wonder how long will it be before the Southern Poverty Law Center labels the ‘Punk Berets’ a ‘Right-wing Hate Group’ compelling the IRS and MSNBC to go after them. The problem is not that homosexuals decide to arm themselves and become militant; the problem is that Marxian politicians want to keep them defenseless and targeted so that they can use them as a convenient political pamphlet.

I just read an article yesterday about Marseille France, sorry I don’t remember the link, talking about the high crime rate in the city, including gun violence. Apparently, entire sections of the city are no-go zones where there is basically mob rule and gang wars fought with AK-47s is an almost daily thing.

Are the gun laws in France more lax than in the USA? I don’t really know. But if they have gun control, it’s apparently very ineffective.

Yeah, I think if you want to go into a club that the owner says is a gun free zone, then you do it at your own risk. Having the government demand that it’s a gun free zone is an entirely different thing.

I’ve always done my best to be very practical and not dogmatic on guns, though philosophically I have no problem with my neighbor owning an ICBM for home defense. But to this day, though I’ve been searching, I’ve yet to hear a progressive proposal that eliminates gun rights for a notable block of guilty parties without eliminating the same rights for many, many more of the innocent. The closest they seem to get is “this won’t affect YOUR rights, you personally, reader.” Well, great, but if I wanted to lobby exclusively for the rights of white, educated, Christian heterosexual males like myself why would I have bothered to leave the two-party tent at all?

I hope it lasts – I mean, the newly-minted 2A supporters. Once the fear wears off, maybe they’ll go back to being anti-gun. If someone can get a firearm into the hands of these new folks ASAP and bring them to a range, maybe they’ll se the light permanently. PP is a great group, with local chapters everywhere that go on shooting trips, hold classes, etc. They were central to the recent follow-up case to Heller.

My problem with this is that homosexuals are mentally ill (in varying degrees from mild to off the charts),irrational,and hypersensitive,imagining slights and “homophobia” where none exists. They have an unusually high suicide rate,even in foreign nations where they are fully accepted,thus their claim that their suicides are “caused by Christian homophobia”,etc. doesn’t wash. GBLTs are not stable and rational people. We already have a desire to prevent mentally ill people from having access to firearms,this isn’t furthering that aim.

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

From every account I’ve read the shooting started at 2, the police sent in an armed team at 5… three hours after the beginning of the incident, and only when text messages from hostages started coming in.

The first news report I heard on the radio said that the cops in in an armored MRAP for three hours while the gunman had the run of the place. This, of course wasn’t worded that way, but that’s the gist of it.

Here’s the bottom line, if you’re ever in a place where a gunman is shooting, the cops won’t respond until the shooting stops, the shooter kills himself, or he’s done killing everyone he really intended to kill.

What I’ve read is that the off duty cop/security guard ran inside when the shooting started and exchanged gunfire with the guy. The ODC/SG called for help, and a pickup team of the first cops on the scene ran inside after him and after a gun battle they cornered the guy in the bathroom.

Once the guy was in the bathroom with one doorway to defend, they really had no chance and getting him, and containing him there while they evacuated the wounded behind them in the dance area was prudent.

And, by the time the SWAT guys showed up with the equipment to get at him, he had stopped shooting. Negotiating was prudent. There was likely nothing they could do for the people in the batrhoom with the terrorist; he had probably killed them all before SWAT got there.

Breaching the wall of the bathroom he isn’t in and pulling people out was a smart move.

And, when he cmae out through that hole, killing him was also prudent.

At this early, confused stage, absent a comprehensive chronology of who did what, I want to withhold judgement.

What I’ve read is that the off duty cop/security guard ran inside when the shooting started and exchanged gunfire with the guy. The ODC/SG called for help, and a pickup team of the first cops on the scene ran inside after him and after a gun battle they cornered the guy in the bathroom.

Well that certainly makes me feel better. The stories I read on CNN last night didn’t provide any of that detail. They reported an initial exchange of gunfire, then suddenly the story shifted to the cops waiting outside for three hours.

I guess I’ll go back to complaining about the cops in my head.

And, when he cmae out through that hole, killing him was also prudent.

Killing that fuck was ALWAYS prudent. We need to find a way to kill him again.

Advocates of gun control think it’s a good idea to disarm victims and to advertise where you can find completely defenseless people because there’s one primitive magical superstition they share with the murderer Omar Mateen: chanting things makes them true.

AND IT’S PALMER COMING DOWN FROM THE TOP ROPES – WITH A FOLDING CHAIR!

At a time when the government seems to think it has the power to tell individuals what they can and can’t do, and private businesses that they have to do business with anyone and everyone whether they want to or not, does this not also infer that if the law says you have a right to carry a gun then no private business should be able to deny you that right?

My point is that if the supreme court ever does confirm the constitutional right to carry a gun for self defense, federal laws supersede the state laws and the statement in the article:

“People can decide that they don’t want to arm themselves. And the bar owner should be able to decide whether to allow armed patrons or not. But people should not be able to make that decision for others.”

If the bar owner decided not to allow armed patrons would this not be a violation of a constitutional right.

Does anyone think that allowing Muslim immigration at the levels that Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson would like to will make the country more tolerant of gays? Will the assimilation unicorn show up and suddenly make Muslims “gay affirming”?

If Scott wants to support Muslim immigration into this country, I would suggest he look at the fate of Jews in Europe and France in particular. I don’t believe for a minute that Muslims will ever get Sharia law in this country. That is just paranoia. Muslims will however do what they have done in Europe, which is terrorize small or marginal groups that for whatever reason they don’t like. Yeah, there are Jews in France, but going to a Synagogue involves an armed guard and walking around as an open Jew outside of certain neighborhoods is taking your life into your own hands.

Ninety eight percent of the population is not gay and won’t really be effected by Muslim terrorism of gays. Does anyone really think many of that 98% are going to stand up anymore than they stood up when Muslims made it impossible to draw Muhammad in public? People generally don’t risk their lives for the right to engage in activities that do not interest them.

So sure Scott, keep supporting mass Muslim immigration. I am sure 20 years from now you will be able to go to a gay bar or attend a pride parade. Of course we will have to call out the national guard and park a tank in front of it, but you will be able to go, if you are brave enough.

We can’t really tell who the good Muslims are. And as far as gays go, there really are not any good Muslims. It is hysterical to listen to the same people who think not being willing to recognize gay marriage some national sin turn around and have no objections to letting religious Muslims into the country. It is just tragic comedy.

Like I said on the other thread; a Muslim just murdered fifty gay people in a gay bar in the name of his religion and the Progressive response is demand that more Muslims be let into the country and to tell gays they need to give up their guns. Yet, somehow it is the evil right wing Christians who hate the gays and not Progressives.

No they haven’t. Eric Rudolph bombed two abortion clinics over 20 years ago and didn’t even kill anyone in those bombings. One abortion doctor was murdered in the late 1980s. That is about it. There may be a stray case I am forgetting but not many. And certainly nothing like this. Countless? Why do you tell yourself lies? It doesn’t help you. You can disagree about things but lying never helps anything.

There may be a stray case I am forgetting but not many. And certainly nothing like this. Countless? Why do you tell yourself lies?

John, you are arguing with a man who spent an entire afternoon arguing that radioactive fallout from government atomic bomb tests was an example of private industry polluting the environment. Please bear this in mind.

Now that you mention it, it probably is a good idea to allow more Muslim terrorists into the country so they can teach their Christian counterparts how to produce dozens corpses efficiently. Maybe they just need more practice.

What does that have to do with my point? So because some Jews are anti-gay themselves, that makes it okay for the Muslims in Europe to terrorize them? Or even if it did, that means Muslims won’t terrorize gays back into the closet if we let enough of them into the country?

What is your point here other than Jews suck as bad as Muslims, a point which I frankly don’t agree with but is irrelevant anyway.

It appears that he was a gay Muslim. And when gay kids are raised by religiously conservative parents, they often end up messed up, either suicidal or violent.

Yet, somehow it is the evil right wing Christians who hate the gays and not Progressives

There is really little difference between right wing Christians and Muslims, except that in the West, over the last century, rational people managed to bring right wing Christians to heel and curb their violent tendencies. Whether we can do the same thing with Islam remains to be seen.

The call for more gun control here is as predictable as it is rather baffling. For one, there is no prohibition in the United States that actually works.

Coincidentally, proven by this very tragedy, considering the assassin was able to purchase the weapons despite background checks which stemmed from “sensible gun-control legislation.”

Of course the anti-gun Marxians are never serious about wanting “sensible gun control laws”. They want to proscribe weapons of any kind. A disarmed population is much easier to control. After guns, they will go for whatever other instrument exists to resist an assailant:

I keep hearing how he was born in the USA and Trumps immigration ban wouldn’t help – although it might have kept his crazy Afghan dad out. If that’s the case, then it’s like an Italian, Japanese, or German American going ballistic during WWII – which never happened.

RE: Gay Gun Rights Activist: Arm Yourselves An important Supreme Court decision on the right to self-defense involved the fear of anti-LGBT violence.

Gays have no more rights to arm themselves for self defense than straights. As we all know, only the police and criminals should own firearms. This way, all crime rates will go down. One only has to look at Illinois and Chicago’s gun control laws which were the strictest in the nation before the Heller decision. Then look at at just look at Chicago’s gun related deaths before the Heller decision. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Evan . if you, thought Gladys `s story is impossible… on saturday I got a new Alfa Romeo since getting a check for $5834 recently and-in excess of, ten thousand this past-munth . it’s definitly the best work Ive ever done . I began this 4 months ago and almost immediately started bringing in at least $80.. p/h . you could look here … ………………….. http://www.MaxPost30.com

So, being gay is sufficient justification for carrying a gun in states that require justification? That sounds like fun! I expect many men, when faced with the choice between (1) their gun and free blowjobs from men, and (2) no gun and costly blowjobs from women, may end up choosing (1).

uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at .. Read more on this web site..

before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …